Page 4803 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
even further drop in the national birth rate. So not only will we see the reduction in family-friendly provisions; we will see a reduction in family size.
But the federal government are not content to reduce family-friendly provisions. No. They have now legislated away the rights of all workers to seek compensation should they be unfairly dismissed. The estimated cost of having to fight an unfair dismissal in the common courts is $30,000—$30,000 for an employee to try to keep his job in an unfair termination. I think it is a disgrace that there now is no real penalty for employers, to discourage unfair termination. The federal government might be excused for ignoring my opinion or the myriad opinion polls that show Australia’s distrust and fear of WorkChoices, though they do this at their own peril. But they cannot be excused for ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the inquiry into WorkChoices that was in clear opposition to these changes. I quote from the submission of Katrina Milbourne, a Canberra registered nurse:
Many people are dependent on their employment to meet living costs such as mortgage repayments. I believe that under the proposed legislative changes the potential risk will exist for some workplaces to become places where people are fearful of their future employment, where they are too worried to raise legitimate concerns, and where they are stressed about the future of their family income. In such circumstances I believe that employees will place the need for an income over family needs.
The need for income over family needs: when you work in a sector, as Ms Milbourne does, that is reliant on penalty rates, the loss of such entitlements will mean a substantial loss of income. In most cases, workers, the men and women who provide care for our loved ones in the aged care sector, will be forced to either take on an additional job or extend their hours of work. This means time away from their children. This means fewer breaks and increased risk of injury at work. This means a reduction in the care that they provide, simply because they are overworked, stressed or dealing with injuries. Workers will have to choose between income and safety, and for many low-paid workers income will always win.
It is for this reason that WorkChoices will jeopardise the safety of Canberra’s 160,000 private sector workers and commonwealth government workers. It will force them to choose between providing for their families or refusing to work long hours. It will place workers in highly stressful situations with having to negotiate away their entitlements. It will force workers to compete, not only on productivity levels but on the lowest cost. For industries like transport and construction, already identified as high risk, this will mean more hours for less pay. Those additional hours will mean more workplace injuries and more families having to clean up the mess left by greedy employers. Gone are the protections for meal and rest breaks. Again, I wish to express my grave concern in industries like transport and construction, where breaks are about safety and should not be up for negotiation.
Gone is the right to leave loading as a right of permanent employment. It, too, is negotiable. Heaven forbid that you work in a restaurant or for a catering company, because “negotiable” actually spells “deserted”, as I am sure Mrs Dunne is aware. There is no worker choice in WorkChoices. WorkChoices will prevent the choice of union members to have their union representative present at a dispute. Proudly, the federal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .